If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Non-resident tag fees out of control!

1 horrible example is MT, resident elk tag $20, non-resident $794, that's a 40x multiplier!!!
That means if you sell 1 non-resident an elk tag, you need to sell 40 residents an elk tag to generate the same amount of revenue!

Also once-in-a-lifetime type tags should be the same price as non-residents or at least more than they currently are, tell me a resident wouldn't apply for a desert bighorn sheep if the tag cost $100 vs. $30?? after 30+ years of applying I think a resident could fork over $100 for that tag.

There's no reason non-residents should be forced to subsidize resident's tag fees.

I'd love to see Eastmans' Poll this

What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases.

"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C

Originally Posted by CrimsonArrow

I vote "A", and challenge anyone to voice a logical argument to that

Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C

Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

You make some good points and I can't disagree with them. I don't want to see hunting become too expensive for the average working American but on the other hand I don't expect it to be dirt cheep and cost less than the gas to get to camp. We are very fortunate in this country to have the opportunity to hunt public land! If all fees were comparable to non-resident fees I would find a way to afford them.

I'm sure most of us residents would give up hunting if we had to pay NR fees. A NR has a choice to hunt his own state instead of coming to the elk states. As a Colorado resident I don't hunt any other states. If they were to make it so I couldn't afford to hunt my own state. I'd have to give up hunting.

Then hunting would become a rich mans sport. That would be pretty sad. A lot of us are meat hunters to feed our family's.

Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??

I don't see how wildlife would lose at all when it came to draw tags. Quotas would be the same, so the number of hunters would be the same. The "loss" of funds from lower NR tag prices would be easily made up for by a much larger number of people paying application fees who didn't apply before because they couldn't afford it. Really the only ones who would lose out would be the people who applied previously that could afford the high NR price tag. Their odds would be much much lower with such an increase in new applicants. So then the new question would be: Allow a broader demographic of hunters to apply with lowered odds? Or continue to leave out a large population of hunters who lack the funds, and have better odds for those who do? I don't really see how the residents or the wildlife would be affected at all either way. Say an elk tag is $600, and the application fee is $15. If that elk tag was reduced to $300, it just takes 20 application fees to make up the difference. With the more affordable price on the tag I think it's safe to say you could expect an extra 20 hunters to apply for each tag. Just like that, the state is making their money and more people are having the opportunity to afford to do something that they couldn't before. But again, draw odds drop. It depends if you support the utilitarianism viewpoint, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number of people, or if you are more of a survival of the richest type. Honestly, I'm somewhere in between. I feel for those who dream of hunting out of state but can't afford it, having been fortunate enough to go on a number of trips myself. By no means can I financially do multiple trips each year or apply for many of my dream hunts. But I do enjoy the ability to apply for the small number of tags I can afford; and I enjoy doing so knowing that I have a decent chance at drawing sometime in the near future.

I don't see how wildlife would lose at all when it came to draw tags. Quotas would be the same, so the number of hunters would be the same. The "loss" of funds from lower NR tag prices would be easily made up for by a much larger number of people paying application fees who didn't apply before because they couldn't afford it. Really the only ones who would lose out would be the people who applied previously that could afford the high NR price tag. Their odds would be much much lower with such an increase in new applicants. So then the new question would be: Allow a broader demographic of hunters to apply with lowered odds? Or continue to leave out a large population of hunters who lack the funds, and have better odds for those who do? I don't really see how the residents or the wildlife would be affected at all either way. Say an elk tag is $600, and the application fee is $15. If that elk tag was reduced to $300, it just takes 20 application fees to make up the difference. With the more affordable price on the tag I think it's safe to say you could expect an extra 20 hunters to apply for each tag. Just like that, the state is making their money and more people are having the opportunity to afford to do something that they couldn't before. But again, draw odds drop. It depends if you support the utilitarianism viewpoint, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number of people, or if you are more of a survival of the richest type. Honestly, I'm somewhere in between. I feel for those who dream of hunting out of state but can't afford it, having been fortunate enough to go on a number of trips myself. By no means can I financially do multiple trips each year or apply for many of my dream hunts. But I do enjoy the ability to apply for the small number of tags I can afford; and I enjoy doing so knowing that I have a decent chance at drawing sometime in the near future.

I wasn't talking about tag revenues so much as general stewardship of the land and the resources by residents. I think if there were so many non-residents hunting that the residents lost interest in hunting they would loose interest in the resource.

I think license and tag revenues are secondary to limiting the number of non-residents when it comes to setting prices. I think there needs to be a balance.......there are too many states with no game and if the price was the same to hunt the ones that have game it would cause immediate overcrowding. My opinion anyhow.